Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A possible solution to Activist Judges
Original Content | 03/18/2025 | By Laz A. Mataz

Posted on 03/18/2025 12:39:08 PM PDT by Lazamataz

Recently, Activist Judges (I call them ššØš©-š”š© š‰š®šš šžš¬Ā©) have been hamstringing President Trump in nearly every effort he has taken to try to right the country. From interfering in ending Birthright Citizenship, to any Federal Funding Freezes, to Federal Employee Buyouts, to Access to Treasury Records...even trying to TURN PLANES OF DEPORTED GANG MEMBERS AROUND IN MIDAIR... there is nothing these people will not attempt to block.

Trump’s 2025 term shows an extraordinary rate—46+ judicial interventions in under two months, which dwarfs Biden’s 5 TROs in four years, Obama’s 20 in eight, and Trump’s own first-term 40 in four. There is a 45x higher rate than Biden’s for February alone.

Trump’s current term stands out for its immediate and intense judicial resistance, outpacing all predecessors in speed and scale, driven by controversial immigration and governance reforms. Earlier administrations, even recent ones, faced fewer and slower challenges, highlighting a unique moment in executive-judicial dynamics.

Solutions have been offered such as ignoring the orders or impeaching the judges, neither of which strikes me as a true solution.

But there is an action that DOES strike me as a solution: Jurisdiction stripping.

In United States law, jurisdiction-stripping (also called court-stripping or curtailment-of-jurisdiction) is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and to exclude or remove federal cases from state courts.

I'm unclear if this would require only the House or the House and Senate. If it is the latter, then this would not work either.

Discuss.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: definatelychat; judgewatch; morechat; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: Lazamataz

What we need is an appeal fast track.

First stop, triage. Does the case have legal legs, and does everyone have their facts in one box? If not, leave.

Second stop, circuit court first sniff, both sides have one hour to state their argument.

Third stop, circuit court all justices present. Grill time for everyone. One business day.

Fourth stop, Supremes, all justices present. Grill time for everyone. One business day.

Fifth stop, published ruling within ten business days.

All five stops completed in 30 days.


61 posted on 03/18/2025 1:32:23 PM PDT by lurk (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brian Griffin

Sorry. No sale.


62 posted on 03/18/2025 1:42:42 PM PDT by JayGalt (Fight! Fight! Fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Again, strip court funding to handle specific types of cases under ā€œbudget reconciliationā€ procedure. No Senate filibuster is permitted.


63 posted on 03/18/2025 1:48:16 PM PDT by nvskibum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

All orders that can be considered budgetary should be codified as statues via reconciliation bill.
All leftist judges should be impeached so that they can be investigated for questionable connections and financial dealings. If there’s anything, then Congress can refer to DOJ for civil and criminal charges.
There really isn’t any meaningful reform of judiciary without House and 60 votes in Senate. Can’t count on SCOTUS to police their own legal colleagues.


64 posted on 03/18/2025 1:48:41 PM PDT by grumpygresh ( Civil disobedience by non-compliance; jury and state nullification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Haddit
Tucker Carlson interviewed Doug Macgregor. At the 39:00 mark, Macgregor says that the Mexican cartels own our politicians.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=641698908609787&ref=sharing

This circumstance would be particularly relevant in the current Boasberg deportation case and might explain the judge's wild behavior. Cartels can bring a great deal of pressure.

65 posted on 03/18/2025 1:49:21 PM PDT by JayGalt (Fight! Fight! Fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
From ChatGPT... (Only posting the one post here)

Limiting Judicial Interference in Executive Actions

To limit judicial interference in executive actions, including immigration enforcement and agency cost-cutting, several possible responses exist. These range from constitutional actions like impeachment to legislative reforms and executive maneuvers. Here are some potential approaches:

1. Impeachment of Judges

2. Legislation Restricting Judicial Authority

3. Congressional Resolutions & Legislative Clarifications

4. Executive Actions to Limit Judicial Overreach

5. Supreme Court Review and Expansion

6. Constitutional Amendment (Long-Term Solution)


66 posted on 03/18/2025 1:57:16 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
From ChatGPT... (Only posting the one post here)

Limiting Judicial Interference in Executive Actions

To limit judicial interference in executive actions, including immigration enforcement and agency cost-cutting, several possible responses exist. These range from constitutional actions like impeachment to legislative reforms and executive maneuvers. Here are some potential approaches:

1. Impeachment of Judges

2. Legislation Restricting Judicial Authority

3. Congressional Resolutions & Legislative Clarifications

4. Executive Actions to Limit Judicial Overreach

5. Supreme Court Review and Expansion

6. Constitutional Amendment (Long-Term Solution)


67 posted on 03/18/2025 1:57:16 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt

Mayor Reportedly Beheaded Days After Taking Office in Mexico Amid Surge in Cartel Violence
CBS News ^ | October 7, 2024
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/mayor-alejandro-arcos-murdered-after-taking-office-mexico/?intcid=CNR-01-0623
At least 24 politicians were murdered during a particularly violent electoral process leading up to the June election that the key ruling party figure won by a landslide, according to official figures.


68 posted on 03/18/2025 1:59:04 PM PDT by Haddit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PMAS

Good idea, assuming it’s damning.

Just send the file to them. Only the file, no notes or cover letter.


69 posted on 03/18/2025 2:01:58 PM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

DEFUND THE COURTS!

The courts have been failing us for long enough. They act like they have blank checks. Whatever the cost or the cause, taxpayers are expected to pick it up.

Our courts have failed us. Consider the crime rate.

So many judges feeding their egos have become leeches on the American people. We need to seriously cut back on the funding.


70 posted on 03/18/2025 2:03:23 PM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I mentioned Original Jurisdiction about 15-20 years ago. The late (I think) FReeper Congressman BillyBob responded that the Supremes only take a handful of Original Jurisdiction cases per year.
From that, I infer that, as a group, they really don’t want to be bothered by doing their jobs.


71 posted on 03/18/2025 2:05:13 PM PDT by ComputerGuy ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Why don’t the Rep’s just get a Rep judge to nullify the libs order?


72 posted on 03/18/2025 2:08:04 PM PDT by US_MilitaryRules (#PureBlood )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boycott

Article III Section 1, prohibits reducing the pay of judges. However, Congress has the authority to abolish part or all of the federal judiciary and create a new judiciary. Jefferson did it in 1802, and Lincoln did it for the DC District during the Civil War.


73 posted on 03/18/2025 2:08:08 PM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: desertsolitaire; Lazamataz
The legislation needn't be adopted by or even introduced in the Senate to be effective.

If the proposed legislation were introduced in the House, it could be assigned to the Judiciary Committee for hearings. The Judiciary Committee could then subpoena several of the most odious judges to testify in public about conflicts of interest, relatives' financial dealings, ex parte communications, and the like.

The judges could either appear and be grilled in public or refuse to appear and claim that, while they have authority over over the Presidency, no other branch of government has authority over them.

74 posted on 03/18/2025 2:43:51 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: desertsolitaire; Lazamataz
The legislation needn't be adopted by or even introduced in the Senate to be effective.

If the proposed legislation were introduced in the House, it could be assigned to the Judiciary Committee for hearings. The Judiciary Committee could then subpoena several of the most odious judges to testify in public about conflicts of interest, relatives' financial dealings, ex parte communications, and the like.

The judges could either appear and be grilled in public or refuse to appear and claim that, while they have authority over over the Presidency, no other branch of government has authority over them.

75 posted on 03/18/2025 2:43:57 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Tar and feathers


76 posted on 03/18/2025 2:46:46 PM PDT by exinnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ComputerGuy

Exactly


77 posted on 03/18/2025 2:47:03 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Do the math. L+G+B+T+Q = 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Where’s Jim Jordan???


78 posted on 03/18/2025 2:49:02 PM PDT by Jane Long (Jesus is Lord!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Realistically, the answer lies with the US Marshal service. They are the only ones that give the federal judiciary its teeth.

So you coax the head, their IG, and their lieutenants to state that the judges’ rulings are clearly unconstitutional on their face (by the Vestment clause of Art 2 Section 1), thereby they cannot and will not be enforced. Or, the US Marshals have to publicly admit they don’t know the plain language in the US Constitution.

That would trigger an emergency SCOTUS ruling to end this mess. Hopefully.


79 posted on 03/18/2025 3:32:29 PM PDT by Salvavida (NS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimjohn

I like the way you think.


80 posted on 03/18/2025 3:35:54 PM PDT by CrimsonTidegirl (The US comes first, NOT Ukraine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson